Gay marriage pressure back on Obama

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on two same-sex marriage cases, but the court’s attention-grabbing move has put the pressure on President Barack Obama to clarify his stance on the issue.

When Obama announced in May that he favored same-sex marriage — after previously supporting just civil unions — many took it as a full embrace of same-sex marriage rights. It wasn’t: his nuanced language stopped well short of endorsing the idea that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to marry for same-sex couples. He said the issue was best left to the states to decide in the near term.

Text Size

The Obama administration made clear last year that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples. Obama said he’d concluded that law was unconstitutional. It was the Justice Department that asked the Supreme Court to take a challenge to DOMA, hoping justices would agree to strike it down.

However, the federal government has never taken a stand on the other, potentially more significant case that the justices added to their calendar on Friday: the legal challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage, approved in 2008. In 2010, a district court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional and found a broad federal right to same-sex marriage. In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit also found the measure unconstitutional, but on narrower grounds.

Though the case transfixed gay rights activists, the Obama administration never weighed in. And when Prop. 8 backers asked the Supreme Court to take the case, the Justice Department was again silent. The department had no duty to file anything since the suit was against the State of California, not the federal government.

The Justice Department could have taken a stand at any point, and could still stay out of it — but now, dodging that question has gotten harder.

“There will be pressure for the Justice Department to weigh in on the Prop. 8 case,” said Richard Socarides, a longtime gay rights activist and White House adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Socarides said that when Obama “evolved” in the direction of support for gay marriage earlier this year, he and his aides seemed eager to let some time pass before confronting the question of whether it was a right every American should be guaranteed.

“I think this federalizes the issue much more quickly than the White House would have liked and may force them to take a position earlier than they would have liked,” Socarides said.

“It’s a fascinating question,” said another prominent gay rights activist, who asked not to be named. “Will they be at the table and which side of the table will they be at?”

no pressure at all to the president. i think the supreme court will put an end to the whole gay marraige issue once and for all. clearly DOMA is unconstitutional and prop 8 can bee seen as the same as when states barred interracial marraige. BOTH ARE GOING DOWN!

Despite the tone of the article, one thing is clear, marriage equality has a much better chance of evolving under a Democratic administration, than it would have had with Republicans in the White House.

As polling makes quite clear, same-sex marriage will happen in America. It is just a matter of time. It is also no secret that more Americans are now coming out. In the last election, 6.4% of 18-29 voters identified as lgbt, double the number from 30-49 and triple the over-65 voters. As the electorate ages, it will only lead to a more pro-gay consensus, and a larger voting minority.

The question is not whether marriage equality, and full gay civil rights, will come to America. It is only a question of how soon.

In the same way that the Bible was wrongly used to condemn inter-racial marriage and justify slavery, it is also wrongly used to justify discrimination against gays today.

Whichever politician chooses to be on the wrong side of history, by opposing same-sex marriage, will find that they will only become increasingly politically irrelevant with the passage of time. I think President Obama will factor that in, when choosing a way to move forward.

Marriage. Not found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence; by the way Union is but not in this context. So it would seem that the question come down to the rights of people that we grant belong to everyone equally. Now I don't much care for what others consider important factors in determining whether a marriage is a marriage, a civil union, or a terrible mistake. If I did, I would have consulted you regarding my own marriage, and if I need someone to protect my marriage I won't be looking to the federal government for help.

If the Supreme Court decides that all persons in the United States have the same rights as others then I can live with that. If the Supreme Court decides that the federal government can define the rights of some to be less than those of others, I would think it a bad decision that will eventually be over-turned in time when the intelligence and wisdom of the nation reaches a marginally higher level. But it would seem only fair that if the Supreme Court decides that one class of citizens is not to the the same rights as another class then they should receive an appropriate and sufficient compensation for the loss of those rights. Afterall, what American doesn't in their heart believe that there will be a price to pay if you try and take away their freedoms?

"If the Supreme Court decides that all persons in the United States have the same rights as others then I can live with that. "

Gays already had those same rights...the right to live/sleep with whoever they want, the right to adopt, the right to will property to whomever, the right have input on medical decisions (power of attorney), etc.

The only thing they didn't have was a right to spousal Social Security survivor benefits.

Whereas there might be some who admire you for fighting so reliably and diligently for causes that you know you cannot win, others will simply see you as a loser who refuses to admit he’s lost, and who, pathetically, keeps on flailing.

I merely see you as a sad failure who just fights (poorly) for the sake of fighting.